Petitioner Rasheed Ahmed seeks post arrest bail in a case FIR No,63 dated 22.02.2012 registered under Sections 337F(v) & 337L(2), PPC at Police Station Pacca Larran District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner' contends that there is an inordinate delay of more than one and half month in lodging of the FIR; that it is a case of cross-version, as a case FIR No,02 dated 03.01.2012 under Section 337A(ii), PPC has already been registered against the complainant and others for causing injuries to the petitioner and his co-accused. Further contends that allegation against the petitioner is that he has caused a fracture on the left arm of injured Mst. Majeedan with "Soti", which has already been declared attracting the offence under Section 337F(v), PPC and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.08.2012 without any substantive progress in his trial.
3. On the other hand learned law officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing a fracture on the left arm of injured Mst. Majeedan; that the injured was medically examined on the same day, therefore, the delay, if any, in lodging of the FIR cannot be attributed to the complainant. Further contends that the medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the complainant; that during the, investigation the petitioner has been found fully involved in the occurrence; that weapon of offence i,e, "Sou" has already been recovered from the petitioner and that mere non-falling of an offence with in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. is not sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Places reliance on PLJ 2007 Cr.C. Lahore 655.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, it is a case of cross-version and a case FIR No,02 dated 03.01.2012 has already been registered against the complainant and others for causing injuries to the petitioner and his co- accused. The aggression of either side can only be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. In this view of the matter, case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt, as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise the injury attrkbuted to the petitioner has been declared attracting the offence under Section 337F(v), PPC, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50.000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.